Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The applicant makes mention of KIMBO, ALOLE NAPALI AND SULEDO areas which are of moderate significance to global importance
Evidence B:The proposed territory is not part of key biodiversity areas. Additionally the EOI does not indicate whether it is home to endemic species or breeding grounds for mammals or birds.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Low carbon values
Evidence B:Apart from mentioning in passing that the relationship between forests and climate change is intricate, the EOI does not provide robust information and figures on the importance of the area for climate mitigation.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: It is very evident that it is largely under IPLC management but also high presence of government of Tanzania controll
Evidence B:While Tanzania recognizes customary tenure and community based forest management (PFM), the EOI provides only general information about a shift from centralized to community based land and natural resources management in Africa.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: Applicant makes mention of religious and cultural sites and importance
Evidence B:Significance of the area is clearly outlined. For example, the EOI is explicit that maasai culture including ceremonies, rites of passage and architecture as well as social organization are deeply embedded in forest-related values.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Quite a number of threats mentioned, human wildlife, rangeland degradation and poverty
Evidence B:The EOI lists threats which, left unattended, risk negatively impacting on IPLC and biodiversity. They include, rangeland deterioration and human-wildlife conflicts.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: There are regulations and policies but they not being implemented. That is why evictions are a common thing among the Tanzanians with very little regards for IPLCs
Evidence B:Tanzania’s legal and policy architecture actively promotes IPLC over lands and natural resources. However titling is a crucial stage towards acquiring security of tenure.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: It has been in the international news that the government of Tanzania is opposed to IPLC conservation unlike what is mentioned in the proposed EoI. There is no protection for IPLCs and conservation areas in Loliondo was to be offered to rich Arab trophy shooters
Evidence B:Community forests, wildlife management areas and rangelands on which the EOI is based, receive active government support as key pillars of decentralization and community participation in the management of natural resources.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: The protection of SULEDO forest, rangeland management and wildlife management are the only ones mentioned
Evidence B:Apart form SULEDO community forest, the EOI does not provide sufficient and convincing information on the successful IPLC-lead conservation initiatives.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: ICCAs managemen, OLENGAPA and pilote participatory rangeland management are the only ones mentioned
Evidence B:The three on-going projects listed in the EOI are strongly aligned with the project goals. They include, piloting participatory rangeland management and ICCASs management in Tanzania.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: They have well aligned with objective of enhancing IPLCs effort to steward waters, land and natural resources for their benefit
Evidence B:Activities and expected results are strongly aligned to the overall objective of ICI. For example, it envisages conserving biodiversity while promoting/enhancing IPLC rights and governance of natural resources.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: the activities are convincing but they lack a ToC
Evidence B:Activities and expected results reflect well thought out project objectives and a cohesive approach to their implementation.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: well the only missing component is how the IPLCs are going to be protected from the regular evictions, this is a worldwide known threat that is not at all addressed by the EoI
Evidence B:Impacts identified in the EOI can be realistically be accomplished. This is based on the activities proposed. They are aligned to results and challenges identified.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: Well aligned in my opinion as per the EoI
Evidence B:13. Most of the activities identified are realistic and can be implemented within the budget line indicated above. Significantly, they do not include reforming legislation which usually takes longer time
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: The only sources outlined are UNDP and IFAD and no amounts are mentioned
Evidence B:The three ongoing projects funded by IFAD and UNDP respectively are well aligned and complementary to the proposed project.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: Between 100,000 to 500,000Ha.
Evidence B:The project envisions working on around 180,000 h. This is moderate based on the criteria above.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: very well done here and the extent well explained
Evidence B:The EIO proposes up scaling cultural practices. However explanations given are not robust enough.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: They make mention of a sustainability plan through capacity building of the institution and collaboration with other actors including the government
Evidence B:Sustainability plans proposed in the EOI include involvement of local government department and institutionalizing local groups. The latter is unclear and in general the vision is not robust enough.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: very well summarised in the document
Evidence B:EOI does not convincingly link the on the national and global environmental priorities. However, it reflects understanding of obligations arising from the CBD in particular.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: The have a gender mainstreaming policy in place
Evidence B:While effective gender inclusion presupposes ensuring women take part in decisions affecting their lives, the EOI is only moderately clear because it focuses on participation without specifying at what stage in the decision making value chain.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: May have potential for scale up due to past experience
Evidence B:The area proposed is significant and large enough, with challenges that put IPLC and biodiversity at risk. Accordingly, proposed project reflects not only innovation but also potential for transformative results.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: There are other collaborative partners but IPLCs generally are beneficiaries
Evidence B:The Lead submitting organization is not IPLC-lead- its implementing partners is. The EOI omits to provide information on the main areas of expertise and experiences of staff. Accordingly, suffices to say that the partnership is clear with the implementing partner.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: They have demonstrated leadership vey well
Evidence B:Based on the partnership and references of previous projects, it is clear that the main proponent demonstrates on the ground leadership relevant to the proposed project.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: Well defined partnership but roles not well specified
Evidence B:Partners listed in the EOI are strongly rooted in the proposed land. Accordingly, the lead proponent has strong IPLC partnerships.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: It seems as if they have slightly over two years, experience, 2017, and 2019, from UNDP funding there is need to demonstrate experience to handle such a huge project
Evidence B:While the main proponent has experience implementing a GEF project, qualifications of implementing staff are not listed hence casting a shadow on the technical capacity.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: They have handled two projects of over 500,000 USDs as per the EoI
Evidence B:The organization strongly demonstrates project and financial management capacity. For example, external audits are conducted regularly. Also its annual budget almost 800,000$ per annum.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: Yes but the extent is weak, slightly over two years only
Evidence B:The answer is yes but the explanation provided is not convincing/robust enough.